Ford official tune?

[Cape Cruiser]

Not that easy.

I guess all the engineers that designed the Abrams tank and it's corresponding turbine engine could learn a thing or two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

It's important to note, the engine has a 10:1 reduction unit bolted to it, crankshaft spins at 20,000+ RPM, it is reduced down (through GEARING) and has 2x the torque as option B. That's exactly why HP matters and torque is largely meaningless....gearing.

Not a good comparison,turbine running %110 all the time . Try that with an internal combustion engine. Torque gets you off the line and horsepower get you through the lights.Your credentials or did you stay at a holiday in last night?

Sponsored

 

[Oregon Comrade]

Not a good comparison,turbine running %110 all the time . Try that with an internal combustion engine. Torque gets you off the line and horsepower get you through the lights.Your credentials or did you stay at a holiday in last night?

**** measuring contest with credentials? Doesn't matter. That turbine has an operating range sim to a diesel from 10,000 RPM to 30,000 RPM shaft, reduced is 1,000 RPM to 3,000 RPM....pretty close to a big displacement diesel (actually wider) and makes less torque than a Corvette.

HP moves you, period.

Go research this, wade through the BS and listen to the guys that know what they are talking about....like the engineers who design this stuff for a living.

 

[Psykostevo]

Not that easy.

I guess all the engineers that designed the Abrams tank and it's corresponding turbine engine could learn a thing or two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

It's important to note, the engine has a 10:1 reduction unit bolted to it, crankshaft spins at 20,000+ RPM, it is reduced down (through GEARING) and has 2x the torque as option B. That's exactly why HP matters and torque is largely meaningless....gearing.

I get what you are saying. You could have a rotating mass that is so heavy that applying 200 lb/ft of torque to it will not even begin to get it to move. It would effectively have zero horsepower, even though there is 200 lb/ft of torque present and being applied to the rotational mass. [(200*0)/5252=0] where as you can gradually increase the torque applied to it, and then begin to move the rotational assembly. Once it begins rotating or moving you can then determine the amount of horsepower it produces. The HP being derived from the work being done (rotations) and the corresponding force being applied to it (torque).

Now, I have no formal education in engineering...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Oregon Comrade]

I get what you are saying. You could have a rotating mass that is so heavy that applying 200 lb/ft of torque to it will not even begin to get it to move. It would effectively have zero horsepower, even though there is 200 lb/ft of torque present and being applied to the rotational mass. [(200*0)/5252=0] where as you can gradually increase the torque applied to it, and then begin to move the rotational assembly. Once it begins rotating or moving you can then determine the amount of horsepower it produces. The HP being derived from the work being done (rotations) and the corresponding force being applied to it (torque).

Now, I have no formal education in engineering...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Exactly and thanks for the humor...

 

[Polar Bear]

So..... back to the intake and tune.... Lol!!

I've been eyeballing this intake for a couple of weeks and I'm thinking part of the Christmas Bonus may be going to Roush. I wonder if they'll eventually offer the tune separately? The intake is a for sure for me but still studying tunes!

 

[RangerB]

Ouch $5 a gallon!!! I thought we were high. My area is is Reg $3.17 Mid $3.57 Prem $3.60.

Hilariously, I knew you were PNW from these gas prices! Haha

 

[txpetroguy]

John Lingenfelter once said horsepower is torque over time. IDK, but I love the power my Ranger has and it will smoke by brother-in-law's Tacoma so that's all that matters to me. LOL

 

[Polar Bear]

John Lingenfelter once said horsepower is torque over time. IDK, but I love the power my Ranger has and it will smoke by brother-in-law's Tacoma so that's all that matters to me. LOL

Haha This!

 

[txpetroguy]

So..... back to the intake and tune.... Lol!!

I've been eyeballing this intake for a couple of weeks and I'm thinking part of the Christmas Bonus may be going to Roush. I wonder if they'll eventually offer the tune separately? The intake is a for sure for me but still studying tunes!

Let me know who you get to install the tune. I can install the air box/intake but don't have a tool to flash the ecm.

 

[Polar Bear]

Let me know who you get to install the tune. I can install the air box/intake but don't have a tool to flash the ecm.

Will do!

 

[Oregon Comrade]

John Lingenfelter once said horsepower is torque over time. IDK, but I love the power my Ranger has and it will smoke by brother-in-law's Tacoma so that's all that matters to me. LOL

He knows whats up and yes, Rangers SMOKE Tacomas...even chipped Tacomas.

 

[Msfitoy]

My stock Ranger running 87 octane with fat 33" tires smokes just about anything not prepared at the light...and I'm probably carrying an extra 300lbs of extra gear

If I were in my 280hp modded MINI sitting at a light next to a stock Ranger, I'd have to make a hell of a lot of noise and smoke to beat one...that would be embarrassing so I'd probably not try

 

[Mobius97]

My stock Ranger running 87 octane with fat 33" tires smokes just about anything not prepared at the light...and I'm probably carrying an extra 300lbs of extra gear

If I were in my 280hp modded MINI sitting at a light next to a stock Ranger, I'd have to make a hell of a lot of noise and smoke to beat one...that would be embarrassing so I'd probably not try

Wow! Didn't know the Minis were that slow with an extra 100bhp. I'd think it would be a pocket rocket and would walk the Ranger even tho being a handler vs straight liner.

I'm a huge fan of small British cars like the Mini. I know for a fact that even if my Elise was in stock form (190bhp) it would show the average tuned Ranger it's tail lights w/o much effort.

 

[DMK45]

Just filled up third time. First two 87, now did 91. Been getting 16.7 MPG with a relatively light foot, and 70/30 city/highway driving. I have the sub 2k RMP rumble, and sometimes it feels like it doesn't have ooomph on the freeway/not engaging turbo boost. My expectation for 91 is a 911 killer, 30mpg, smooth as silk ride. IT BETTER BE FOR ALMOST $5/GALLON!

Well, $5gal stinks for sure.. u must be in Cali? After 2 -consecutive fill ups of 93 octane from Speedway no less ..my Ranger certainly felt quicker.. an as smooth running as always regardless of octane fuel used. Altho I do think any modern TGDI benefits quite a bit from a higher octane for too many reasons to name here. Btw, i also read a Ford powertrain engineer sayin new Rangers will achieve 300hp on 93 premium fuel *stock*! Not hard to believe since in other applications like Mustang & RS rally car our 2.3L Is a 300+ hp beast. Lovin my truck after bout 5mos ownership & 6k mis. Gets better & better as mis accrue. Enjoy everyone! Piss on them taco trucks

 

[DMK45]

Wow! Didn't know the Minis were that slow with an extra 100bhp. I'd think it would be a pocket rocket and would walk the Ranger even tho being a handler vs straight liner.

I'm a huge fan of small British cars like the Mini. I know for a fact that even if my Elise was in stock form (190bhp) it would show the average tuned Ranger it's tail lights w/o much effort.

Really!? These new Rangers are quite quick esp for a truck! Put her in sport mode w/ tank of 93 octane premium my friend an mash that throttle. Forget the mini & keep on Ford truckin I say. God bless!

Sponsored